 |
| Feminist protesters maintain that these magazines de-humanize women |
There have recently been sexual harassment claims made against newsagents that display ‘Lad’s Mags’ amongst their publications. There have been some strong reactions to this, and I have to say that the surrounding debates have left me pretty perplexed and a little frustrated.
A Lad’s Mag
is men’s lifestyle magazine that usually includes a high volume of pictures of
nude or scantily clad young women. They are generally characterized by a naked
woman on the front cover. Some time ago, someone decided it was inappropriate
to have these magazines with their “adult” covers in view of children –
 |
| 'Nuts' displayed right above the kid's magazine 'Girl Talk' |
So they were
moved to the top shelf. Now if you walk in to a British or Irish newsagent and
glance up at the top shelf of the magazine rails, you will undoubtedly be
greeted by a row of naked girls, ready and waiting for you to purchase.
Personally, I
think it’s understandable that people are offended by these displays, but there
are many who disagree. There are also many who have been angered by the claims,
and believe them to be weak and unfounded.
Here are some
of the main opposing arguments, and my own opinions as to how they skid right
on past the point:
Ø "The women in these magazines are models. They are not being forced into
selling themselves; it is their chosen profession."
Well sure – nobody is claiming that Lad’s Mags are on a par
with prostitution. But here’s the thing; it’s not about the models, it’s about our society and our perceptions.
Glamour models, like all women, have a right to do whatever the hell they like
with and to their bodies. But personally, I have a problem with taking my 6
year old niece to the shop, and having to hope she doesn’t want to browse the
magazines. If she does, what she’ll see are a row of naked women on display,
lined up in compromising poses to be sold and objectified. It’s an image that
will resonate with her, as it has with generations before her, including my
own.
Why?
Because we see it everywhere.
For example; why does
no one blink an eye if a perfume advert displays a woman tangled up in bed
sheets, apparently post-coitus? How does that advertise perfume?
In our society, sex undeniably sells.
So no, these glamour models aren’t selling themselves. Lad’s
Mags sell women’s bodies. It’s creepy, and I find it offensive.
Ø "Women’s magazines are also harmful to body image, but nobody is fighting
to get rid of them!"
Women’s magazines affect collective body image in a different
way than Lad Mags do. They are not comparable, and pretending that they are is
utter horseshit.
A woman’s magazine might present their white, ribbon slim,
shiny haired cover girl as a beauty ideal, and that is unquestionably
problematic.
Is it damaging to women’s self-esteem?
Yes.
Is it an unfair representation of women?
Yes.
Does it present the insidious idea that women can be
purchased for the sole purpose of creating a man’s erection?
No.
It is an issue, but it is a separate issue.
Ø "What about the objectification of men
in the media?"
One of my main worries about the objectifying and fetishizing
of women in advertising and entertainment is that I strongly believe it bleeds
into the culture of sexual assault and harassment in every society. A man who
sees naked women everywhere might see a fully clothed woman walking down the
street, and feel perfectly comfortable shouting lewd comments on her. He has no
right to look at her body that way, and even less right to comment on it. And sadly, there
is a minority of men who would take this kind of harassment even further.
I’m not saying men are never the victims of sexual assault.
They most certainly are, and it is terrible and sad when anyone is violated in
that way.
What I am saying is
that if you are worried about the representation of men in the media – do
something about it. Campaign to have images of oiled up, half-naked men removed
from magazines and advertisements. Don’t shit all over the claimants for
objecting to a practise that they find offensive.
It’s petty and lazy.
Now, I've come across one argument that I think is actually clever and inoffensive. Surprisingly, the argument comes from Catherine Scott, a feminist and writer who believes that "banning lads mags would patronize women". In an article written for the Telegraph, Scott writes:
"As feminists we cannot have it both ways: either we credit men with the ability to think for themselves and reject sexism, or we consign them to a fate of being so moronic and malleable that glossy magazines must inevitably drive them to sexual violence."
While I do see where Scott is coming from, and while I often worry that this is how feminists are seen by many (ie. as angry man-hating bigots), I still disagree with her. She also mentions in her article that there have been studies that negate a link between pornography and violence. The thing is, I don't think that seeing naked or sexually compromised women incites harrassment. I think that being so bombarded with sexual imagery of women is what brings people (not just men, everybody) around to the idea that our main function is to be sexually objectified.
I absolutely think that Lad’s Mags should
be banned from newsagents. It freaks me out that they, along with the
mind-blowingly misogynistic Page 3, have become so normalized. They are
materials for personal sexual gratification, and they should remain personal.
There’s a reason you can’t buy dildos in a supermarket.
There’s a reason you can’t buy dildos in a supermarket.
